Er, you have answered your own question. The release number is the last digit of the year, plus the month. e.g. 6.10 was 2006 October, 7.04 was 2007 April. And guess what - there are six months between 6.10. and 7.04! Now, assuming that Hardy Heron is released on time in April 2008, can you work out by yourself what the version number will be?
That, if I may say so, is an incomprehensible response.
The GPL is used worldwide. It can be enforced by law worldwide. Microsoft trades worldwide. Their threat wasn't just against US Linux users, it was a simple statement, albeit unsubstantiated, that Linux (everywhere) infringes upon Microsoft patents and its users (everywhere) could easily be subjected to legal action. This isn't just a US matter, although the rest of the world would be very pleased to hear that it was.
I concur that we will not know the outcome for certain until this reaches the courtroom - which is precisely why I said "Of course this is all informed speculation, but speculation nevertheless, until it actually reaches a courtroom." I think that pretty much covered it.
And you are a specialist in this field within the legal profession? I provided a link that outlined my case, can you please provide the same courtesy to me? I assume also that you did read the contents of the link that I provided?
because Microsoft has no intention of ever suing endusers
In which case everyone will be happy and Microsoft can stop spreading FUD which is affecting businesses around the world. Yet despite Microsoft's claim that they have no intention to sue anyone, they have felt it necessary to indemnify the users of Novell, Linspire etc against such legal action. Whatever for? They are not going to do it if you believe what the right hand is saying, but they are threatening to do just that if you listen to the left hand. You might be correct in your assessment but there is a disconnect between the various statements being issued by Microsoft. I can understand some businesses wanting to make sure of their legal position before continuing with their own plans.
I didn't realise that the change was so trivial, particularly if we ignore the hardware requirements for the storage of the data itself. However, my question still stands. How can this be discovery of a crime that allegedly has already been committed? Does the MPAA expect TorrentSpy to repeat the same download that corresponds with the details of the alleged crime that MPAA already have so that the MPAA can this time catch the IP in use? To my view this is another example of surveillance - MPAA want to have the ability to observe what TorrentSpy is doing until the court case so that they can find different examples of whatever crime they allege has already taken place. So without any guilt been proven to date, TorrentSpy have been ordered to record all new connections and furnish the data to the court. Whatever for?
I think that your view of TorrentSpy's business model is a little off, but that is only my opinion. I know little of TorrentSpy but I will assume that it is similar to TPB. If I am wrong then please correct me. TPB is doing nothing illegal. They do not host illegal material, only the information as to where torrents can be found. If illegal material is discovered on their servers, as with most other reputable companies, there is a way in which the discovery can be notified to those maintaining the torrent database and it can be removed. I will agree that the users tend to fall into two different camps: those that use torrents to download large but entirely legal files e.g. distros, ebooks, etc, and those that download music and media in an attempt to avoid payment and to bypass copyright restrictions. I have no sympathy for the latter users but cannot see any problem with the former. Of course, one could argue that it should be illegal, but as the law currently stands it isn't. Are they being punished for committing an offence against a law that has not yet been written?
All this comes down to is what everyone knows: TorrentSpy's business model is based on piracy
If your statement is true, there is no need for due legal process. Everybody knows that the crime has been committed, which presumable includes the judge and all those involved with this case. I'm surprised that the vigilante groups haven't already organised a lynch mob to exact the appropriate punishment. On the other hand, I always believed that people were innocent until proven guilty. Yet here we have a case where TorrentSpy are known by everyone to be carrying out illegal activity, the MPAA has the evidence but somehow cannot produce it unless TorrentSpy arranges for the download to take place again and records the IPs during the transfer, and that TorrentSpy are deemed to be responsible for their users' actions. OK, I have taken at extreme view of the circumstances surrounding this case - well, an extreme view of what little I know about it - but it appears that the legal process is being subverted to ensure that the MPAA will win by instructing TorrentSpy to repeat the crime and, this time, record the details for the court.
No, that is until a judge orders you to do so. Then, apparently, yes you would have to log such details. This ruling is not being imposed on all servers (not yet, at least) but only on TorrentSpy's servers.
I thought Novell agreed, as part of their deal with Microsoft, to distribute Suse on behalf of Microsoft in return for each voucher? Microsoft entered into this agreement so that Novell could offer Linux (Suse) and yet indemnify its users against future patent threats from Microsoft. Microsoft issued the vouchers that could only be redeemed for Suse. I would argue that this is both Microsoft and Novell agreeing to do something, hence the reason that there was so much coverage when Microsoft decided to try to back out of the deal. The deal would not adversely affect Novell but I believe that Microsoft's own legal team could see the problem with continuing. Nevertheless, and as another poster has pointed out, their options seem to be to withdraw from the deal and provide financial recompense to anyone who has a voucher, or to continue and face the legal implications of their actions. If they do continue but never accuse linux of patent infringement then it might never reach a court. What the GPL3 would achieve in this instance would be to effectively neuter Microsoft's claim that linux infringes on more than 200 patents. I am not going to argue what the result would be in a US court, but there are some who believe that the outcome might not be as clear cut as you suggest elsewhere.
There has been good coverage in the relevant media around the world regarding GPL3. Certainly in Europe it has been the subject of TV programs, newspaper articles and, of course, received its fair share of publicity in the computer, IT and business journals. Many of these have been rather lightweight but some have taken a serious look at the license and its implications. The license has been published (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt) and its contents dissected in various fora. Groklaw produces some excellent analysis and comments but I have preferred the legal assessments which I have read in professional journals for the best advice on its implications to me and to businesses.
The point about 'conveying' is covered here (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070518 124020691) and elsewhere. I am not permitted to provide an extract from an article that discusses it further because it is part of a professional report which is covered by its own legal restrictions. However, my reading of it suggests that it agrees quite closely with the Groklaw assessment and it believes that it could be upheld in a European court.
Of course this is all informed speculation, but speculation nevertheless, until it actually reaches a courtroom.
The ruling is that TorrentSpy must, in future, maintain records of IP information. How is that meant to help prove or disprove the case that the MPAA are trying to prosecute, which must, by definition, have already occurred? This is not discovery - but an imposition on the way the software is to be re-written. Or can the MPAA say that they think that TorrentSpy will commit an offence sometime in the future and they now want to have the means to prove it?
It could mean just that - although that is not seen as a likely option. Novell has already stated that it intends to include GPL3 software in future releases. But, if Novell do not want to be bound by GPL3 then they must only distribute software that is GPL2 or earlier. Which might mean that they have a lot more work maintaining software for which they previously relied upon other contributors to provide. Still early days......
No. But the courts will decide whether Microsoft's vouchers for Linux software to be supplied by Novell do equate to distributing software licensed under the GPL. IANAL, but many lawyers seem convinced that it does equate to one and the same thing. Of course, FSF have not decided to sue Microsoft - they have simply said that Microsoft cannot get around the GPL3 simply by saying that they (Microsoft) don't like it as a license. AFIAK, no software covered by GPL3 has yet been issued under the voucher scheme.
Not quite right there. The FSF have not changed the license under which Novell distributes its software. It was issued under the GPL2 and remains under that license. Microsoft have not infringed upon GPL2. However, if a significant number of developers move to the new GPL3 license then Novell have to make a choice. Either accept the new license conditions or do not accept the new software that is being developed under GPL3. If they do the former then Microsoft could well be accused of infringing GPL3 because their vouchers are a form of distribution - that might not be the correct legal term but I believe that you understand what I'm claiming. If Novell don't accept the new license conditions with the new software then they cannot include it in whatever they are offering. If sufficient elements of the new software are changed by their developers to GPL3 then Novell could find themselves stuck with an out-of-date distribution, or be forced to fork and update many elements of Gnu/Linux themselves in order to keep it under GPL2.
It is by no means certain that your claim that it 'will fail in court' is correct. Many people who know far better than I seem to think that it will succeed.
I won't even bother with the "law is the law" argument for obvious reasons
What obvious reasons? The post that I was referring to stated that the law had not been broken. I pointed out that it had been broken for the reasons that I gave. I was not concerned with whether it is a good law or a bad one - it has been contravened therefore the police are correct in their actions and the courts will decide whether the 'crime', if it is proven, deserves punishment. I have no interest in analogies, be they water taps, cars, or whatever. As you so correctly point out, they are not terribly accurate in relating to how the law actually works so they are second best; the law is the best way of interpreting the law. If 'it' is all wrong would you care to explain why 'it' is wrong? Does 'it' refer to my comments, the law as it is written, or something else? Under UK law you do not have the right to give away your ISP's capabilities because it is usually contrary to you agreement with the ISP (i.e. your TOS). Whether it will affect your own ability to use the internet is irrelevant. If someone uses your network and therefore your ISP's network without the appropriate authority or permission then the law has been contravened. If you do not like the law then you can either a: attempt to change it if you are British, or b: butt out if you are not British, it's not your country and your opinions do not count when it comes to deciding how UK laws should be constructed.
I'm sorry but this is all wrong.
Thank you for your opinion. Now that you have made me aware of it, what would you like me to do?
when are you guys going to export your Linux game sites so I don't pay double?
Answer: Just as soon as you get Microsoft to do the same with their software prices in Europe.
On a more serious note, Linux Format is available for US distribution but I couldn't tell you how much the delivery cost would be. The contacts for overseas readers are +44 (0) 1858 43795 or www.myfavouritemagazines.co.uk (note the English spelling of 'favourite'). I've no connection with the magazine but I have been a very contented subscriber for over 5 years now. Its not the cheapest around but it is well worth what I pay for it. HTH
Usually when you try to access the network behind the server via the server it is called cracking or, more usually nowadays, hacking. That is also illegal under the same Acts in UK law. The exchange of data to which you have authorised access, via http, smtp or any other protocol is not considered to be direct access to the network supplying that data. If it were otherwise then all web page or email access would be illegal. This is obviously not the case. This interpretation is nothing new - it seems to be the accepted way thing are on the internet. But if you try to obtain someone else's emails or data stored on a server but not usually available through a public web page (i.e. to get data to which are you are not authorised) you are also committing an offence, not only in the UK but throughout Europe and I suspect in many other countries too. In the TFA he was not simply accessing a server but asking the network to which the wifi device was connected to to get data from elsewhere i.e. he was using the system to do his bidding. That is illegal under UK law with the owner's permission. Whether it was the network to which the wifi device was immediately connected or the 'network' belonging to the ISP does not matter. Without permission such an act is illegal. You can debate the technicalities all you like - it remains against the law whether you accept it or not. The fact that RF energy is emitted in all directions is also totally irrelevant. The same could be said of energy from your mobile/cell phone. It doesn't give others the right to free telephone calls on your phone does it?
I have tried to answer your question in a serious manner although I still get the impression that you were actually trying to make a silly point with your previous post. If you are British and wish to change these laws then please try to do so. I think that you will fail because most people agree with them. If you are not British - then our law is none of your business as anything other than a point for discussion. You have made you views known but you're not going to change it, so lets discuss TFA under the law as it is and not under some ambiguous law that you have just made up.
Of course the judge may still decide that he was simply misguided and that there was no ulterior criminal motive for his actions. He could well be acquitted or simply given a warning and suspended sentence. The problem with Slashdot is there are many who seem to assume that charged == guilty and that the poor man will probably be sentenced to death for his crime. The police have done what we pay them to do - they have enforced UK law as it exists today. The courts can now decide how best to address this case and what punishment, if any, is appropriate. If all he was doing was checking his emails then I hope that he is allowed to go on his way with a clean record. If, however, he was attempting something more serious then I have no sympathy for him and he will get what he deserves.
No, I have a different interpretation. For example, the individual used the network to access the internet - i.e. he is accessing data held on any computer (the webserver) and he knows that is what he is trying to do. He also knows that he does not have the owner's permission (he admitted it to the police). The data does not have to be held on the same computer or network to which he has obtained unauthorised access.
Er, are you intentionally being stupid or are you just trying to raise a laugh? Accessing their website is not the same as accessing their network. And I thought that this forum was for geeks....
The law is not unjust. You don't know why the man was using the network. Was he simply downloading his emails, or pron, or trying to sniff passwords and bank account details, or trying to set up a bot? The law is intended to make all of these things illegal without having to specify each and every one of them. If you want to use someone's network in the UK (wired or wireless, the law makes no difference) then you need the owner's permission. It might not be your law, but it is ours. You also don't know how the man reacted when approached by the police. Was he cooperative or did he try to hide his actions? Each will tell the police something about the man's activities and whether he knew he was breaking the law. So the police have charged him. They can now inspect his computer using forensics to find out more about what he was up to. In turn, the courts will decide whether he is simply misguided and should be acquitted or whether he had criminal intent and should be punished accordingly.
The reason that the law exists is, in part, that anyone who cannot secure their network is also unlikely to have secured each computer on that network. But there is no legal requirement for him to do either. It is his equipment. It would be relatively easy therefore to misuse his computer or to steal personal information. So the law states, quite simply, that without the owner's permission you cannot use his computers or network. There is no implicit approval in the eyes of the law. Simple - but effective./p>
If you don't like our law, well, hard luck. We will not tell you what to do. Please don't presume that you can say that our laws are unjust and should be changed. If the original poster that you referred to doesn't like the law, then there is a process that can be followed to try to get the law repealed. If he doesn't even try to do this then he simply has failed to persuade anyone of the validity of his argument. If he tries but subsequently fails then he has be unable to persuade the majority of the validity of his argument. That's how it works in a democracy. The majority of us like it that way even if a small number of individuals do not.
Just because people do not think the way you do does not make them arseholes (that's the English spelling, not the American). However, those that presume that they have the right to judge others who think differently have, themselves, fully earned the title in all respects. Have a nice day.:-)
I assume that is your interpretation of the law somewhere other than in the UK? Because UK law isn't so vague. Unless you have the 'specfic permission' of the network owner you are not permitted to use that network. An unsecured network does NOT grant such permission under UK law. If we are going to be pedantic ("then lets stick to the actual facts") then lets do just that. The charge was brought under UK law. Your opinion of how access to open networks should be interpreted in the UK is quite irrelevant. The law, rightly or wrongly, is what it is.
The crime should be correctly defined as "stealing broadband access," and stealing requires both knowledge of wrong-doing and an intent to deprive the victim at a bare minimum.
There is no deprivation here, and nothing has been lost. The man in question seemed to have no way of knowing that the owner of the broadband connection did not want people to access it.
I am also British but I do not agree with your analysis. Firstly, because "Dishonestly obtaining free internet access is an offence under the Communications Act 2003 and a potential breach of the Computer Misuse Act." The offence is specifically stated in the law as it is currently written, although not using that particular phrase. The use of the word 'dishonest' does not make a law valid, but it is the correct usage to indicate that a crime is believed to have been committed when the charge is being written. After all and as you have pointed out, without the word dishonest then it appears that there has been no crime. Unfortunately, TFA has not used the specific wording from the act but has quoted what the individual has been charged with. The case could, I suppose, fail on this technicality but I suspect that the judge will accept it. Secondly, any unauthorised use of someone's computer equipment, which includes a network, is covered by the Computer Misuse Act. If the owner has not given specific permission as required by this Act, then an offence has been committed. Of course, we will not know until the court case is heard whether the owner had given such permission but the accused did admit to "using the owner's unsecured wireless internet connection without permission" so it looks quite likely that the Act was contravened. Thirdly, if the ISP account allows x Mbs to be downloaded and this individual was downloading y Mbs, then deprivation of that bandwidth did take place. Whether the owner would have noticed it is not relevant in law. Just because you are not driving your car at any particular time does not give me the authority to drive it. Furthermore, if the account was capped, then the legal user of the network has also been deprived of a specific amount of data that now cannot be downloaded during the relevant download period. Fourthly, you might leave your network open and free to all users but, unless you have advertised it as such, then no-one can use your network without your 'specific permission'. That is why airports have the signs announcing that a wifi is available. It is the legal authority for others to use it. Simply leaving it unsecured does not fulfil this requirement as far as I understand it. The law in the UK, rightly or wrongly, does not accept that an open network implicitly grants permission for anyone to use it. You might like it to be so but it is not currently what the law believes to be a correct interpretation of the appropriate Acts. The police have reasonable grounds for suspicion that the law has been contravened and have thus acted appropriately.
Despite my analysis, the judge may decide that there is insufficient evidence here to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt or there may be, as you have already acknowledged, further facts that have not been included in TFA. We will all have to wait to see whether the judge or CPS (although I do not think that they will be asked for a judgement in this case) thinks that the police acted correctly and whether the case leads anywhere. Regardless, the outcome could well clear up any misunderstandings that might currently exist as to what it, and what is not, permitted by law in UK with regard to unsecured networks.
Finally, I do not agree that this is an 'unjust' law - but IANAL. It addresses a specific problem, in fact a series of problems, and I personally support it. The title of TFA is, in the usual Slashdot fashion, a gross exaggeration of the truth - a single person has been charged, there is hardly a 'crackdown' on broadband theft.
My previous reply to you was tagged as a troll. It wasn't intended to be such, I was genuinely saying 'thank you'. It must be the language barrier - I speak English but my American is obviously lacking.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm afraid that I think you are wrong. They wouldn't want to live in the US. They might once have wanted such a thing, but I even doubt that.
Er, you have answered your own question. The release number is the last digit of the year, plus the month. e.g. 6.10 was 2006 October, 7.04 was 2007 April. And guess what - there are six months between 6.10. and 7.04! Now, assuming that Hardy Heron is released on time in April 2008, can you work out by yourself what the version number will be?
That, if I may say so, is an incomprehensible response.
The GPL is used worldwide. It can be enforced by law worldwide. Microsoft trades worldwide. Their threat wasn't just against US Linux users, it was a simple statement, albeit unsubstantiated, that Linux (everywhere) infringes upon Microsoft patents and its users (everywhere) could easily be subjected to legal action. This isn't just a US matter, although the rest of the world would be very pleased to hear that it was.
I concur that we will not know the outcome for certain until this reaches the courtroom - which is precisely why I said "Of course this is all informed speculation, but speculation nevertheless, until it actually reaches a courtroom." I think that pretty much covered it.
And you are a specialist in this field within the legal profession? I provided a link that outlined my case, can you please provide the same courtesy to me? I assume also that you did read the contents of the link that I provided?
because Microsoft has no intention of ever suing endusersIn which case everyone will be happy and Microsoft can stop spreading FUD which is affecting businesses around the world. Yet despite Microsoft's claim that they have no intention to sue anyone, they have felt it necessary to indemnify the users of Novell, Linspire etc against such legal action. Whatever for? They are not going to do it if you believe what the right hand is saying, but they are threatening to do just that if you listen to the left hand. You might be correct in your assessment but there is a disconnect between the various statements being issued by Microsoft. I can understand some businesses wanting to make sure of their legal position before continuing with their own plans.
I didn't realise that the change was so trivial, particularly if we ignore the hardware requirements for the storage of the data itself. However, my question still stands. How can this be discovery of a crime that allegedly has already been committed? Does the MPAA expect TorrentSpy to repeat the same download that corresponds with the details of the alleged crime that MPAA already have so that the MPAA can this time catch the IP in use? To my view this is another example of surveillance - MPAA want to have the ability to observe what TorrentSpy is doing until the court case so that they can find different examples of whatever crime they allege has already taken place. So without any guilt been proven to date, TorrentSpy have been ordered to record all new connections and furnish the data to the court. Whatever for?
I think that your view of TorrentSpy's business model is a little off, but that is only my opinion. I know little of TorrentSpy but I will assume that it is similar to TPB. If I am wrong then please correct me. TPB is doing nothing illegal. They do not host illegal material, only the information as to where torrents can be found. If illegal material is discovered on their servers, as with most other reputable companies, there is a way in which the discovery can be notified to those maintaining the torrent database and it can be removed. I will agree that the users tend to fall into two different camps: those that use torrents to download large but entirely legal files e.g. distros, ebooks, etc, and those that download music and media in an attempt to avoid payment and to bypass copyright restrictions. I have no sympathy for the latter users but cannot see any problem with the former. Of course, one could argue that it should be illegal, but as the law currently stands it isn't. Are they being punished for committing an offence against a law that has not yet been written?
All this comes down to is what everyone knows: TorrentSpy's business model is based on piracyIf your statement is true, there is no need for due legal process. Everybody knows that the crime has been committed, which presumable includes the judge and all those involved with this case. I'm surprised that the vigilante groups haven't already organised a lynch mob to exact the appropriate punishment. On the other hand, I always believed that people were innocent until proven guilty. Yet here we have a case where TorrentSpy are known by everyone to be carrying out illegal activity, the MPAA has the evidence but somehow cannot produce it unless TorrentSpy arranges for the download to take place again and records the IPs during the transfer, and that TorrentSpy are deemed to be responsible for their users' actions. OK, I have taken at extreme view of the circumstances surrounding this case - well, an extreme view of what little I know about it - but it appears that the legal process is being subverted to ensure that the MPAA will win by instructing TorrentSpy to repeat the crime and, this time, record the details for the court.
No, that is until a judge orders you to do so. Then, apparently, yes you would have to log such details. This ruling is not being imposed on all servers (not yet, at least) but only on TorrentSpy's servers.
I thought Novell agreed, as part of their deal with Microsoft, to distribute Suse on behalf of Microsoft in return for each voucher? Microsoft entered into this agreement so that Novell could offer Linux (Suse) and yet indemnify its users against future patent threats from Microsoft. Microsoft issued the vouchers that could only be redeemed for Suse. I would argue that this is both Microsoft and Novell agreeing to do something, hence the reason that there was so much coverage when Microsoft decided to try to back out of the deal. The deal would not adversely affect Novell but I believe that Microsoft's own legal team could see the problem with continuing. Nevertheless, and as another poster has pointed out, their options seem to be to withdraw from the deal and provide financial recompense to anyone who has a voucher, or to continue and face the legal implications of their actions. If they do continue but never accuse linux of patent infringement then it might never reach a court. What the GPL3 would achieve in this instance would be to effectively neuter Microsoft's claim that linux infringes on more than 200 patents. I am not going to argue what the result would be in a US court, but there are some who believe that the outcome might not be as clear cut as you suggest elsewhere.
There has been good coverage in the relevant media around the world regarding GPL3. Certainly in Europe it has been the subject of TV programs, newspaper articles and, of course, received its fair share of publicity in the computer, IT and business journals. Many of these have been rather lightweight but some have taken a serious look at the license and its implications. The license has been published (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt) and its contents dissected in various fora. Groklaw produces some excellent analysis and comments but I have preferred the legal assessments which I have read in professional journals for the best advice on its implications to me and to businesses.
The point about 'conveying' is covered here (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070518 124020691) and elsewhere. I am not permitted to provide an extract from an article that discusses it further because it is part of a professional report which is covered by its own legal restrictions. However, my reading of it suggests that it agrees quite closely with the Groklaw assessment and it believes that it could be upheld in a European court.
Of course this is all informed speculation, but speculation nevertheless, until it actually reaches a courtroom.
The ruling is that TorrentSpy must, in future, maintain records of IP information. How is that meant to help prove or disprove the case that the MPAA are trying to prosecute, which must, by definition, have already occurred? This is not discovery - but an imposition on the way the software is to be re-written. Or can the MPAA say that they think that TorrentSpy will commit an offence sometime in the future and they now want to have the means to prove it?
It could mean just that - although that is not seen as a likely option. Novell has already stated that it intends to include GPL3 software in future releases. But, if Novell do not want to be bound by GPL3 then they must only distribute software that is GPL2 or earlier. Which might mean that they have a lot more work maintaining software for which they previously relied upon other contributors to provide. Still early days......
No. But the courts will decide whether Microsoft's vouchers for Linux software to be supplied by Novell do equate to distributing software licensed under the GPL. IANAL, but many lawyers seem convinced that it does equate to one and the same thing. Of course, FSF have not decided to sue Microsoft - they have simply said that Microsoft cannot get around the GPL3 simply by saying that they (Microsoft) don't like it as a license. AFIAK, no software covered by GPL3 has yet been issued under the voucher scheme.
Not quite right there. The FSF have not changed the license under which Novell distributes its software. It was issued under the GPL2 and remains under that license. Microsoft have not infringed upon GPL2. However, if a significant number of developers move to the new GPL3 license then Novell have to make a choice. Either accept the new license conditions or do not accept the new software that is being developed under GPL3. If they do the former then Microsoft could well be accused of infringing GPL3 because their vouchers are a form of distribution - that might not be the correct legal term but I believe that you understand what I'm claiming. If Novell don't accept the new license conditions with the new software then they cannot include it in whatever they are offering. If sufficient elements of the new software are changed by their developers to GPL3 then Novell could find themselves stuck with an out-of-date distribution, or be forced to fork and update many elements of Gnu/Linux themselves in order to keep it under GPL2.
It is by no means certain that your claim that it 'will fail in court' is correct. Many people who know far better than I seem to think that it will succeed.
And you are entitled to yours. It doesn't make you right though....
LOL. But it did take 13 days for the reply....
What obvious reasons? The post that I was referring to stated that the law had not been broken. I pointed out that it had been broken for the reasons that I gave. I was not concerned with whether it is a good law or a bad one - it has been contravened therefore the police are correct in their actions and the courts will decide whether the 'crime', if it is proven, deserves punishment. I have no interest in analogies, be they water taps, cars, or whatever. As you so correctly point out, they are not terribly accurate in relating to how the law actually works so they are second best; the law is the best way of interpreting the law. If 'it' is all wrong would you care to explain why 'it' is wrong? Does 'it' refer to my comments, the law as it is written, or something else? Under UK law you do not have the right to give away your ISP's capabilities because it is usually contrary to you agreement with the ISP (i.e. your TOS). Whether it will affect your own ability to use the internet is irrelevant. If someone uses your network and therefore your ISP's network without the appropriate authority or permission then the law has been contravened. If you do not like the law then you can either a: attempt to change it if you are British, or b: butt out if you are not British, it's not your country and your opinions do not count when it comes to deciding how UK laws should be constructed.
I'm sorry but this is all wrong.Thank you for your opinion. Now that you have made me aware of it, what would you like me to do?
Hardly looks like the /. effect.
Very much tongue in cheek.....
when are you guys going to export your Linux game sites so I don't pay double?Answer: Just as soon as you get Microsoft to do the same with their software prices in Europe.
On a more serious note, Linux Format is available for US distribution but I couldn't tell you how much the delivery cost would be. The contacts for overseas readers are +44 (0) 1858 43795 or www.myfavouritemagazines.co.uk (note the English spelling of 'favourite'). I've no connection with the magazine but I have been a very contented subscriber for over 5 years now. Its not the cheapest around but it is well worth what I pay for it. HTH
Usually when you try to access the network behind the server via the server it is called cracking or, more usually nowadays, hacking. That is also illegal under the same Acts in UK law. The exchange of data to which you have authorised access, via http, smtp or any other protocol is not considered to be direct access to the network supplying that data. If it were otherwise then all web page or email access would be illegal. This is obviously not the case. This interpretation is nothing new - it seems to be the accepted way thing are on the internet. But if you try to obtain someone else's emails or data stored on a server but not usually available through a public web page (i.e. to get data to which are you are not authorised) you are also committing an offence, not only in the UK but throughout Europe and I suspect in many other countries too. In the TFA he was not simply accessing a server but asking the network to which the wifi device was connected to to get data from elsewhere i.e. he was using the system to do his bidding. That is illegal under UK law with the owner's permission. Whether it was the network to which the wifi device was immediately connected or the 'network' belonging to the ISP does not matter. Without permission such an act is illegal. You can debate the technicalities all you like - it remains against the law whether you accept it or not. The fact that RF energy is emitted in all directions is also totally irrelevant. The same could be said of energy from your mobile/cell phone. It doesn't give others the right to free telephone calls on your phone does it?
I have tried to answer your question in a serious manner although I still get the impression that you were actually trying to make a silly point with your previous post. If you are British and wish to change these laws then please try to do so. I think that you will fail because most people agree with them. If you are not British - then our law is none of your business as anything other than a point for discussion. You have made you views known but you're not going to change it, so lets discuss TFA under the law as it is and not under some ambiguous law that you have just made up.
Of course the judge may still decide that he was simply misguided and that there was no ulterior criminal motive for his actions. He could well be acquitted or simply given a warning and suspended sentence. The problem with Slashdot is there are many who seem to assume that charged == guilty and that the poor man will probably be sentenced to death for his crime. The police have done what we pay them to do - they have enforced UK law as it exists today. The courts can now decide how best to address this case and what punishment, if any, is appropriate. If all he was doing was checking his emails then I hope that he is allowed to go on his way with a clean record. If, however, he was attempting something more serious then I have no sympathy for him and he will get what he deserves.
No, I have a different interpretation. For example, the individual used the network to access the internet - i.e. he is accessing data held on any computer (the webserver) and he knows that is what he is trying to do. He also knows that he does not have the owner's permission (he admitted it to the police). The data does not have to be held on the same computer or network to which he has obtained unauthorised access.
Er, are you intentionally being stupid or are you just trying to raise a laugh? Accessing their website is not the same as accessing their network. And I thought that this forum was for geeks....
The law is not unjust. You don't know why the man was using the network. Was he simply downloading his emails, or pron, or trying to sniff passwords and bank account details, or trying to set up a bot? The law is intended to make all of these things illegal without having to specify each and every one of them. If you want to use someone's network in the UK (wired or wireless, the law makes no difference) then you need the owner's permission. It might not be your law, but it is ours. You also don't know how the man reacted when approached by the police. Was he cooperative or did he try to hide his actions? Each will tell the police something about the man's activities and whether he knew he was breaking the law. So the police have charged him. They can now inspect his computer using forensics to find out more about what he was up to. In turn, the courts will decide whether he is simply misguided and should be acquitted or whether he had criminal intent and should be punished accordingly.
The reason that the law exists is, in part, that anyone who cannot secure their network is also unlikely to have secured each computer on that network. But there is no legal requirement for him to do either. It is his equipment. It would be relatively easy therefore to misuse his computer or to steal personal information. So the law states, quite simply, that without the owner's permission you cannot use his computers or network. There is no implicit approval in the eyes of the law. Simple - but effective./p>
If you don't like our law, well, hard luck. We will not tell you what to do. Please don't presume that you can say that our laws are unjust and should be changed. If the original poster that you referred to doesn't like the law, then there is a process that can be followed to try to get the law repealed. If he doesn't even try to do this then he simply has failed to persuade anyone of the validity of his argument. If he tries but subsequently fails then he has be unable to persuade the majority of the validity of his argument. That's how it works in a democracy. The majority of us like it that way even if a small number of individuals do not.
Just because people do not think the way you do does not make them arseholes (that's the English spelling, not the American). However, those that presume that they have the right to judge others who think differently have, themselves, fully earned the title in all respects. Have a nice day. :-)
I assume that is your interpretation of the law somewhere other than in the UK? Because UK law isn't so vague. Unless you have the 'specfic permission' of the network owner you are not permitted to use that network. An unsecured network does NOT grant such permission under UK law. If we are going to be pedantic ("then lets stick to the actual facts") then lets do just that. The charge was brought under UK law. Your opinion of how access to open networks should be interpreted in the UK is quite irrelevant. The law, rightly or wrongly, is what it is.
I am also British but I do not agree with your analysis. Firstly, because "Dishonestly obtaining free internet access is an offence under the Communications Act 2003 and a potential breach of the Computer Misuse Act." The offence is specifically stated in the law as it is currently written, although not using that particular phrase. The use of the word 'dishonest' does not make a law valid, but it is the correct usage to indicate that a crime is believed to have been committed when the charge is being written. After all and as you have pointed out, without the word dishonest then it appears that there has been no crime. Unfortunately, TFA has not used the specific wording from the act but has quoted what the individual has been charged with. The case could, I suppose, fail on this technicality but I suspect that the judge will accept it. Secondly, any unauthorised use of someone's computer equipment, which includes a network, is covered by the Computer Misuse Act. If the owner has not given specific permission as required by this Act, then an offence has been committed. Of course, we will not know until the court case is heard whether the owner had given such permission but the accused did admit to "using the owner's unsecured wireless internet connection without permission" so it looks quite likely that the Act was contravened. Thirdly, if the ISP account allows x Mbs to be downloaded and this individual was downloading y Mbs, then deprivation of that bandwidth did take place. Whether the owner would have noticed it is not relevant in law. Just because you are not driving your car at any particular time does not give me the authority to drive it. Furthermore, if the account was capped, then the legal user of the network has also been deprived of a specific amount of data that now cannot be downloaded during the relevant download period. Fourthly, you might leave your network open and free to all users but, unless you have advertised it as such, then no-one can use your network without your 'specific permission'. That is why airports have the signs announcing that a wifi is available. It is the legal authority for others to use it. Simply leaving it unsecured does not fulfil this requirement as far as I understand it. The law in the UK, rightly or wrongly, does not accept that an open network implicitly grants permission for anyone to use it. You might like it to be so but it is not currently what the law believes to be a correct interpretation of the appropriate Acts. The police have reasonable grounds for suspicion that the law has been contravened and have thus acted appropriately.
Despite my analysis, the judge may decide that there is insufficient evidence here to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt or there may be, as you have already acknowledged, further facts that have not been included in TFA. We will all have to wait to see whether the judge or CPS (although I do not think that they will be asked for a judgement in this case) thinks that the police acted correctly and whether the case leads anywhere. Regardless, the outcome could well clear up any misunderstandings that might currently exist as to what it, and what is not, permitted by law in UK with regard to unsecured networks.
Finally, I do not agree that this is an 'unjust' law - but IANAL. It addresses a specific problem, in fact a series of problems, and I personally support it. The title of TFA is, in the usual Slashdot fashion, a gross exaggeration of the truth - a single person has been charged, there is hardly a 'crackdown' on broadband theft.
My previous reply to you was tagged as a troll. It wasn't intended to be such, I was genuinely saying 'thank you'. It must be the language barrier - I speak English but my American is obviously lacking.